The book The Underdogs explains what the lives of revolutionaries were like during the Mexican revolution. At the start of the book, we encounter a scenario where a mysterious man is eating at a rancho when two federals appear out of now where and kill the dog and attempt to sleep with the woman present. From the start, we are showed the levels of corruption within the federal army, and it is because of this corruption that the revolution is occurring. As the story continues and we learn more about Demetrio Macias, the supposed leader of the group of revolutionaries centered around Lemon we learn about the distrust and hatred that the local people have towards the Federales. As the revolutionaries fight their way through the Sierra Macias is wounded after a fight with the Federales eventually seeking shelter at a small pueblo.  It is at this point that eventually that Luis Cervantes or curro as the revolutionaries called him, Luis was a medical student and revolutionary sympathizer who eventually got enlisted in the army. During his time in the army he learned about the hatred that even some of the soldiers inside of his regiment had towards the Federales, eventually Luis escapes in attempts to join up with Macias. Much to his dismay, Luis is not immediately accepted by the revolutionaries, but it is because of this rejection that he is able to see and observe the revolutionaries in this outsider perspective. As Luis is held up in the jail fearing for his life, he reflects on this aspirations of joining the revolutionaries and how the revolutionaries standing in front of him lacked all of the characteristics he dreamed of. This outsider perspective that Luis gains although it tests Luis’s dedication to the cause allows him to better understand his compatriots. Much like his army experience Luis is eventually allowed to join the revolutionaries eventually coming to understand each and every one of their goals and ideologies much like his army counterparts. The role that Luis places in the story is two parts on one side of it, he is proof of the hatred between the revolutionaries and the Federales which is evident on the group’s unwillingness to accept him for anything else than a Federal. But it is during this time of rejection that he is able to become the observer of the group, even with his desire to join he is objective of the goals and abilities of the revolutionaries. It is these observations of the group which gives allows us to understand both Luis’s plight but also the groups. Their hatred and fear of the Federales and the comradery that they share is what makes us as readers become engaged in their struggles.

Although I somewhat enjoyed the movie Viva Zapata, there were things about it that I just didn’t enjoy. The movie overall does do a good job at telling the tale of the Mexican Revolution through the eyes and events of Emiliano Zapata and the struggle to liberate the lands of the peasants from the rich aristocrats. As the movie progresses we see the transition of Zapata from a lowly field worker to eventually becoming one of the leading figures in the Mexican Revolution. Even with Zapata mentioning at the start of the movie that he did not want to become the conscious of everyone, he eventually finds himself at the center point of not just the indigenous movement but of the revolutionary ones as well. This innate ability to draw people to him which is averagely done in the movie is what allowed for Zapata to become a prominent figure in the Revolution. Eventually becoming an almost immortalized figure in both the revolution and in Mexico.

Even with the movie retelling the story of the revolution to somewhat of an accurate degree, there were aspects to it which did not fall within the narrative of true events. These narratives which are used only to further the Hollywood ideologies and such can be seen when Zapata first enters the presidential palace and asks the president for him to act in their staid because the courts take to much time, only for this scene to occur later on in the movie but with the roles reversed and Zapata being in the presidential position. Also, something that I personally could not get over was the lack of mustache that Marlon Brando had. The Mexican Revolution by some can be seen as one of the greatest examples of machismo in Mexican history, Machismo being the ideologies and characteristics that define what it means to be a man. Most importantly presenting yourself to those around you as being the manliest, this can be evident at times with how the men of Zapata are constantly flirting and being with women to an extreme. One of the strongest figures of machismo throughout the revolution was the classic handlebar mustache which can be seen below, the man bellow is the actual Emiliano Zapata, as you can tell his mustache is quite full and a true figure of machismo unlike Brando’s. Although this may seem as a small detail, the concepts of machismo are deeply embedded in not just the Mexican Revolution but in a lot of Latin Culture. At times, machismo can be seen as one of the defining characteristics of the revolution yet Brando lacks the true essence of it the quintessential mustache.

This week’s readings take on a unique perspective on the roles that revolutions can play in regards to the advancement of both the social and political sphere. In regards to Jefferson who states the need for revolutions to occur from time to time, even if those revolutions gravitate towards acts of violence. Although he specifies that revolutions are not an excuse to ensue violence, but can be seen as tools to promote change. He continues to talk about that it is an inevitable existence for societies to go without revolutions, as they are part of the system which ensures that change continues through time. On the other hand, the Communist Manifesto looks at revolution as a means to initiate the change that is bound to happen. Yet the communist revolutions are meant to be violent and destroy the foundation of what the pre-existing society was based on. In the end ushering in an age of communism throughout the region. These two unique views of the roles of what a revolution can bring to a movement only add to our understanding from last weeks readings of how one defines the success or failure of revolutions.

When one thinks of a revolution normally one thinks of the American revolution or the French revolution, or any sort of revolution which has had a great impact not only locally but on a global scale. Although most of these revolutions contained violence and they saw their end through violence, it does not mean that revolutions must contain violence for them to become successful. Jefferson advocates that although revolutions may become violent that revolutions must not be the source of the violence. One should not create a revolution just to ensue violence throughout the land. If violence is called upon then it may become an option but it should never be the solution. The American revolution can be seen as such, the founding fathers created a social and political movement peacefully trying to establish their own independence from the Crown. But when the Crown did not honor their wishes they resorted to an armed revolution in order to win their freedom.

In the Communist Manifesto, it calls upon all communists to rise up in arms against society in order to destroy everything that stands against their  beliefs. This strong urge to use violence to achieve their goals in achieving a communist revolution can be seen as desperate but needed when facing the environment that communist ideologies are facing. Without the use of violence, the ability for communism to spread would be to some degree limited but not altered. Although the use of violence was not solely used by the communist, violence was used by governments trying to hinder the spread of communism. It is this sort of violent revolution is exactly what Jefferson is against, sure communist  ideologies were heavily repressed throughout Europe but that does not call for the destruction of every fabric of society. Much like Jefferson, Russel Brand from last week’s readings shares the same idea that revolutions are needed in order for societies to advance but also that non-violent revolutions can be as effective as violent ones. Social movements throughout history which have avoided the use of violence have seen some success, although as we learned last week, the success of a revolution can never truly be measured.

Russel Brand’s rallying cry to start a revolution combined with the perspective of David Graeber on what a revolution truly is, allows us to see how a new wave of revolutions are occurring in this modern day and age. By firstly looking at the ways that revolutions have changed not only our own perspective of history but also the lasting affect that each revolution has on a global scale. The concept of a revolution and whether or not it is successful can be seen through different perspectives, according to Graeber some see the social revolution that occurred in the 60’s as a failure while others see it as having a lasting affect on U.S. military strategy and involvement for the past 50 years. The notion of failure or success in regards to revolutions is but a matter of perspective, especially when it comes to social and political revolutions, revolutions of intellectual purpose are much harder to see their goals achieved in the present but instead hold for change in the future. For instance we have Russel Brand who urges for a new wave of social revolutions throughout the world, he does not preach for a violence but for change on a grand scale much like the French or Russian revolutions. Brand’s message to the world is that the current way that society is operated is no longer working and needs to be changed in order for human-kind to survive. His disdain for the current system is evident in both his article and his interview and the way that he presents his revolution, yet much like the social and intellectual revolution of the 60’s we might not be able to see the lasting affects of Brand’s rallying call. The idea of revolution although at times seems like a violent incident as is evident in the past, for example American Revolution, French Revolution, Haitian Revolution, although these are but a few examples of the ways that revolutions can become violence incarnate, it does not mean that all revolutions must involve violence. As it is seen the new wave of social movements where violence is not used as tool to propagate the agenda of the movement, on the contrary these movements try to avoid violence in all regards. As revolutions and our understanding of revolution change, we may one day see Brand much like the charismatic revolutionary leader Che, even if that does not come true one thing is revolutions will continue to occur and evolve alongside as society. It is up to us all on whether to join them or stand at the way side as society and the world changes around us.